Responding to David Ignatius’s suggestion that the commander of Iran’s Quds Force hopes that “the next administration will be more favorable to Iran’s interests,” Max Boot auto-writes:

There is, of course, no earthly reason why the Quds Force commander could expect that a John McCain (whose campaign — full disclosure — I advise on foreign policy) would be more favorable to his interests. So the implication is that Iran’s top terrorist is hoping that Americans will elect Barack Obama this fall.

No earthly reason? Oh, I don’t know about that. Given that two Bush terms have resulted in the destruction of Iran’s greatest rival, the installation of an Iran-friendly regime in its place, and the extension of Iran’s power and influence throughout the region, I think it’s quite possible that a Quds Force commander would be rubbing his hands with glee over the potential Iranian gains to be realized from McCain mucking about in the Middle East — especially since so many of the super-geniuses who helped Iran out by getting up the Iraq war are now advising McCain.

Even for someone who has been carrying the Bush administration’s water for the past several years, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt’s attempt to spin the conclusions of the Phase II report on prewar intelligence is pretty astonishing.

In defending the administration’s misrepresentation of intelligence in making their case for the Iraq war — and, by extension, his own paper’s decision to support that war — Hiatt does with the report what the Bush administration did with the intelligence: Cherry picks statements supportive of his argument while neglecting qualifying or disconfirming information.

Hiatt quotes the report’s conclusion that, on Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, the president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.” The report continues, however, that the administration “did not convey substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.” Why did Fred leave that part out? And why does he do this throughout the item?

Hiatt:

On weapons of mass destruction overall…? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

The report continues:

…though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves.

Hiatt:

Statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

The report continues:

However, policymakers’ statements did not accurately convey the intelligence of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of Al Qa’ida.[...]

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State that Iraq and Al Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided Al Qa’ida with weapons training, were no substantiated by the intelligence.

Contrary to Hiatt’s suggestion that the body of the report actually contradicts its summary — a favorite neocon tactic, as they know most people won’t bother to read the body of the report (Unfortunately for Fred, I’m paid to do this) — the report’s findings clearly support Committee Chairman Rockefeller’s statement that, “in making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”

The bottom line is that members of the Bush administration stated as fact many things which were, at best, only suggested by intelligence. They did this in order to gin up public support for a war which they had already decided was going to happen, regardless. One can claim, I suppose, that the administration’s determination to go to war was made in good faith, but one simply cannot claim this about the administration’s public arguments for that war.

Last week, President Bush presented Tom and Romayne McGinnis with a posthumous Medal of Honor for their son, Private First Class Ross Andrew McGinnis. Ross was killed in Iraq in December 2004 when he threw his body in front of a grenade to protect four of his fellow soldiers, saving their lives. Bush praised Ross’s heroism, and pledged to “never forget” the soldiers “who came forward to bear the battle” for “freedom and security” in Iraq:

The day will come when the mission he served has been completed and the fighting is over, and freedom and security have prevailed. America will never forget those who came forward to bear the battle. America will always honor the name of this brave soldier who gave all for his country, and was taken to rest at age 19.

Ross’s father, Tom McGinnis, is holding Bush to his word. The next day, McGinnis called on Bush to sign the 21st Century GI bill, while speaking at the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes induction:

Our troops when they get home also need our support. … They need to be able to continue their education where they left off. And so I say thank you to the Senate and House who have helped to pass the new GI bill. Now this GI bill only needs the signature of the President of the United States to become law. And I think it’s time that George Bush can sign this bill and make it law to show his appreciation for the support these loyal youth have given him.

Watch it:

McGinnis told the Army Times that he felt he had to seize the opportunity to speak out about the bill while in Washington: “If I didn’t do it when I was down there at the Pentagon or the White House, one of the two, when will I ever have the chance to make an impact?”

Both Bush and the Pentagon oppose Webb’s GI bill. A Pentagon spokesman said it was inappropriate to award educational benefits “after only” two years of service. Opponents of the bill misleadingly cite a Congressional Budget Office report to claim that the bill would harm retention rates, ignoring the report’s finding that the bill would encourage 30,000 new recruits every year.

In threatening to veto the bill, Bush is ignoring the substantial majority of both houses of Congress, along with an overwhelming majority of American citizens. Will Bush also ignore the father of one of America’s greatest heroes?

Transcript: Read more

President Bush leaves today for Slovenia for his final U.S.-European Union Summit. USA Today notes, “The timing comes as many Europeans have begun to look beyond Bush.” A recent poll found that increasing numbers of people in European countries see the United States as a “force for evil in today’s world.”

After attending the summit, Bush will depart for Germany to have dinner with Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday night and then hold a press conference with her the next day.

The leading German news source, Der Spiegel, reports that “senior politicians from Merkel’s ruling grand coalition as well as from opposition parties have done away with diplomatic niceties, seizing on Bush’s farewell visit to express their aversion to the president who remains vilified in Germany for launching the Iraq war”:

– Hans-Ulrich Klose, foreign policy expert for the center-left Social Democrats and deputy chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said: “One really can’t say George W. Bush made the world a better place. On the contrary: His actions played a big part in damaging America’s image around the world.”

– Guido Westerwelle, the head of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party, said: “The Bush era was not a good one — neither for America nor for those who see themselves as friends of America.” … The Iraq war weakened the UN, he said, adding that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was a “disgrace to all the values that America, of all countries, stands for.”

– Jürgen Trittin, a senior member of the opposition Green Party, said Bush “definitely made the world worse.”

In an interview with Slovenia TV, Bush was asked whether he believes “the American brand needs a makeover” in the eyes of the world. Bush conceded, “They may not sometimes necessarily like the President, but they like America.” And they’ll certainly like America much more once the current President has left.